Peabody Trust (death threat): Declan has asked Lyn Brown MP for the referral of his complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission as well as the Housing Ombudsman. There may be nothing we can do about the Equality Advisory Support Service's distortion and dismissal of the complaint
DAY 234 IN A WEEKLY PERIODIC TENANCY
SUBJECT TO A 'NO FAULT' SECTION 21 NOTICE
MAYOR OF LONDON RSI PROPERTY
14/04/20
With the background as provided above, the Heaveys now are facing an eviction notice from their landlord, Peabody Trust housing association. The tenancy is a flat, which falls under the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative. Pardoning my intrusion into English law, but in fairness there does not appear to be any reason for the eviction, relying apparently entirely on the discretion of the landlord.
Joseph R. Carvalko, Esq., American lawyer (full letter here)
Our Church and State website has no less than 59 Nobel Laureates on it despite the never-ending assault on our email; see paragraph 2 under "Church and State" on this blog's sidebar (updated today).
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms formulates what is the core of free speech. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression." In an important interpretation of this article, the European Court of Human Rights in Handyside v. UK (1976) indicated that this "freedom of expression" should be construed as follows. It "is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received, or regarded as inoffensive, or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population". Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see Cliteur, 2010).
The Equality Advisory Support Service (EASS) is the helpline arm of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. If you want to phone the Commission, it's EASS you deal with. And they're not easy to get through to. Straight off the bat, Declan spent a total of three hours on hold before someone picked up. Numerous times he tried leaving a message for a call back but was cut-off every time. And twice he unsuccessfully requested a call back in writing. He was initially led to believe over the phone that the Commission is not public-facing and that referrals were via EASS. Then, on 17 December, he received an email from EASS dismissing his complaint of discrimination against Peabody Trust for new terms of tenancy that are not only not fair or reasonable, but have forced us into a weekly periodic tenancy that poses a threat to his life and inhibits our ability to exercise our rights. Only when Declan took issue with EASS's distortion and dismissal of his complaint, did we then learn from them that a case can be referred to the Commission via either an MP or a solicitor. On 22 December Declan phoned the office of Lyn Brown MP (Lab) for this referral and followed the call up with the email below to a member of her staff. He was told by another member of her staff this evening that we will learn by the end of next week whether or not this referral will be made to the Commission.
22 December 2020
Dear Ms Hinkley,
I have just spoken with one of your gentlemen office colleagues.
I understand that in the next 15-20 days Ms Brown will not only refer my complaint to the Housing Ombudsman (your case reference LB27064), but also the attached letter of complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) together with the attached final decision letter dated 11 December 2020 from Peabody Trust therein referred to.
I am informed by the Equality Advisory Support Service (EASS) that the EHRC is not public-facing. However, EASS state below that an MP can make this referral for me. Please let me know if there is anything from the EHRC website that you think you would need me to complete for this second referral.
I am very grateful to you all for both of these referrals.
Kind regards,
Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring
Open letter for referral to the EHRC
13 December 2020
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Correspondence Unit
Fleetbank House
2-6 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JX
Dear Equality and Human Rights Commission,
Complaint against Peabody Trust
Please can you advise if you can take pre-enforcement action to help protect my rights without resorting to a court case.
Contact Reason
Equality Act - Discrimination.
Protected Characteristic
Philosophical belief.
What has happened
On 11 December 2020, I received the enclosed final decision letter ("the letter") from my landlord, Peabody Trust housing association. In the letter, Peabody falsely allege that I have appointed a solicitor in this case.
They also misleadingly state that I am housed by them under the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) scheme. In fact, my wife and I are tenants of the Clearing House, which is run by St Mungo's on behalf of the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the properties are provided by housing associations – such as Peabody. This fact was clarified by the GLA when their Housing First pilot, which we were a part of, ended. They wrote: "In other words, at the end of the Housing First pilot, the tenants would revert to being Clearing House tenants and as such would fall to be referred to the TST [Tenancy Sustainment Team] like all other Clearing House tenants."
Peabody's proposed new terms of tenancy, taken together with the letter, would inter alia unequivocally disenfranchise me of my right to support from St Mungo's TST. It would leave me instead with "visiting support" from Peabody that I do not want or need. They write: "We do absolutely empathise with you as a former rough sleeper and we hope you will engage with us going forward to further help you with support."
Peabody's letter has been issued to me six months into a supported housing weekly periodic tenancy. It effectively threatens me with 'no fault' short term eviction. Any assurances to the contrary have no value in law, and especially since I have no intention of forgoing support from St Mungo's TST that I am currently being prevented from accessing due to the ongoing destabilisation of my tenancy. In fact, the letter poses a direct threat to my life. I am a 60-year-old asthmatic with a long history of serious respiratory illness, thus placing me in the high-risk group for COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections. Eviction from an RSI property would leave me wholly vulnerable and with no prospect of being housed.
I have emailed my local MP and three councillors for the referral of my complaint straight to the Housing Ombudsman. Without this referral, I have to wait until the period of eight weeks has passed before the Ombudsman will consider the case. Such is the short-term threat to my tenancy that I am also making this complaint to you for discrimination against me as a Clearing House tenant. It is absurd of Peabody to suggest that I am being treated as other Clearing House tenants in RSI properties.
The Equality Act 2010 states that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person by treating them less favourably because of their protected characteristic; in this case, my philosophical belief. The expression of my secular values and beliefs at my website – www.churchandstate.org.uk – should have no bearing on how I am treated by a housing association. I believe that as the managing director of Network for Church Monitoring, the organisation that runs the site, there is sufficient causal connection between my protected characteristic and the way I am being treated by Peabody.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you as soon as conveniently possible.
Yours faithfully,
Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring
5 January: Equality Advisory Support Service: Targeted blindness? We were told this evening that Lyn Brown MP will let us know by the end of next week whether she will refer Declan's complaint of discrimination against Peabody Trust to the Equality and Human Rights Commission
Link updated daily.
13 December 2020
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Correspondence Unit
Fleetbank House
2-6 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JX
Dear Equality and Human Rights Commission,
Complaint against Peabody Trust
Please can you advise if you can take pre-enforcement action to help protect my rights without resorting to a court case.
Contact Reason
Equality Act - Discrimination.
Protected Characteristic
Philosophical belief.
What has happened
On 11 December 2020, I received the enclosed final decision letter ("the letter") from my landlord, Peabody Trust housing association. In the letter, Peabody falsely allege that I have appointed a solicitor in this case.
They also misleadingly state that I am housed by them under the Mayor of London's Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) scheme. In fact, my wife and I are tenants of the Clearing House, which is run by St Mungo's on behalf of the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the properties are provided by housing associations – such as Peabody. This fact was clarified by the GLA when their Housing First pilot, which we were a part of, ended. They wrote: "In other words, at the end of the Housing First pilot, the tenants would revert to being Clearing House tenants and as such would fall to be referred to the TST [Tenancy Sustainment Team] like all other Clearing House tenants."
Peabody's proposed new terms of tenancy, taken together with the letter, would inter alia unequivocally disenfranchise me of my right to support from St Mungo's TST. It would leave me instead with "visiting support" from Peabody that I do not want or need. They write: "We do absolutely empathise with you as a former rough sleeper and we hope you will engage with us going forward to further help you with support."
Peabody's letter has been issued to me six months into a supported housing weekly periodic tenancy. It effectively threatens me with 'no fault' short term eviction. Any assurances to the contrary have no value in law, and especially since I have no intention of forgoing support from St Mungo's TST that I am currently being prevented from accessing due to the ongoing destabilisation of my tenancy. In fact, the letter poses a direct threat to my life. I am a 60-year-old asthmatic with a long history of serious respiratory illness, thus placing me in the high-risk group for COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections. Eviction from an RSI property would leave me wholly vulnerable and with no prospect of being housed.
I have emailed my local MP and three councillors for the referral of my complaint straight to the Housing Ombudsman. Without this referral, I have to wait until the period of eight weeks has passed before the Ombudsman will consider the case. Such is the short-term threat to my tenancy that I am also making this complaint to you for discrimination against me as a Clearing House tenant. It is absurd of Peabody to suggest that I am being treated as other Clearing House tenants in RSI properties.
The Equality Act 2010 states that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person by treating them less favourably because of their protected characteristic; in this case, my philosophical belief. The expression of my secular values and beliefs at my website – www.churchandstate.org.uk – should have no bearing on how I am treated by a housing association. I believe that as the managing director of Network for Church Monitoring, the organisation that runs the site, there is sufficient causal connection between my protected characteristic and the way I am being treated by Peabody.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you as soon as conveniently possible.
Yours faithfully,
Declan Heavey
Managing Director
Network for Church Monitoring
5 January: Equality Advisory Support Service: Targeted blindness? We were told this evening that Lyn Brown MP will let us know by the end of next week whether she will refer Declan's complaint of discrimination against Peabody Trust to the Equality and Human Rights Commission
Link updated daily.
Peabody's threat to Declan's life
Lyn Brown MP has agreed to refer this complaint against Peabody Trust to the Housing Ombudsman.
What is your complaint about?
My complaint is about proposed new terms of tenancy that are not fair or reasonable. The landlord maintains that some language in the new proposed agreement may be different following a merger but that I have been offered a tenancy "like for like as requested" and materially the same as before.
How have you been affected?
The landlord's action has led me to not receiving support from the Tenancy Sustainment Team (TST) at St Mungo's due to the destabilisation of my tenancy caused by proposed new terms of tenancy that are not fair or reasonable. I am living in a Rough Sleepers Initiative designated property. The landlord's action has also led to a great deal of inconvenience for me. Since 17 May 2020, when the agreement I last signed ended, I have been constantly battling the legal threat of a 'no fault' Section 21 eviction in a weekly periodic tenancy. My legal position in respect of a no fault eviction poses a direct threat to my life. I am a 60-year-old asthmatic with a long history of serious respiratory illness, thus placing me in the high-risk group for COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections. Eviction by the landlord would leave me wholly vulnerable and with no prospect of being housed. Assurances that I have received from the landlord that there is no intention to evict me have no value in law in periodic tenancy and are only as good for so long as they last. Other assurances that are not reflected in individual new terms of tenancy are equally of no value in law.
What has the landlord done since you first submitted your complaint?
The landlord maintains that, although the new agreement might not be word for word the same, there are effectively no material differences between the two tenancy agreements. Indeed, I have been falsely accused of not signing a like-for-like agreement. I have also been falsely accused of having appointed a solicitor. And it has been falsely suggested that because I am housed by the landlord, I am not a Clearing House tenant. My wife and I have been and remain tenants of the Clearing House. It is run by St Mungo's on behalf of the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the properties are provided by housing associations – such as the landlord. Alongside our tenancy is access to St Mungo's TST. These facts have been confirmed by both the GLA and repeatedly by St Mungo's TST to third parties. It is apparent from the landlord's final decision letter dated 11 December 2020 that the proposed new terms of tenancy would, inter alia, terminate my standing as a tenant of the Clearing House. It would leave me instead with visiting support from the landlord that I do not want or need. The landlord writes: "We do absolutely empathise with you as a former rough sleeper and we hope you will engage with us going forward to further help you with support."
What do you think the landlord should do to put the matter right?
The landlord should propose what it has repeatedly stated it is offering; namely, a new tenancy agreement not materially different from my existing agreement. It would not have to be word for word the same. It's not just visiting support from the landlord that I do not want or need (see the preceding section). Other substantial and/or adverse variations include the removal of the rent cap for social housing, the tenants remaining liable for rent and service charges until the end of the fixed term if the landlord does not agree to the termination of the tenancy despite the tenants' one month's notice in advance, and the reduction of the stipulated time in arrears for possession from eight weeks to 14 days. An all-inclusive list of terms that are materially different from those contained in my existing tenancy agreement is enclosed in a document titled "Comparative Screenshots". I have an arrangement with St Mungo's TST for support appropriate to my needs that I am unable to take up due to the ongoing destabilisation of my tenancy. In a supported housing tenancy, this represents an unsustainable position, and this, solely because of new terms of tenancy that are not fair or reasonable. It also poses a legal threat to my life (see the first section above).
3 May: Peabody Trust: The appalling terms of tenancy on offer. Declan will seek from the Housing Ombudsman a declaration of incompatibility pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998 (WITH UPDATE 05/01/21)[1]
__________________________
[1] 20 November: I had to upload several images in this blog post to an alternative host for images. They constitute more of my images in MediaFire that do not appear on their site.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan
Lyn Brown MP has agreed to refer this complaint against Peabody Trust to the Housing Ombudsman.
What is your complaint about?
My complaint is about proposed new terms of tenancy that are not fair or reasonable. The landlord maintains that some language in the new proposed agreement may be different following a merger but that I have been offered a tenancy "like for like as requested" and materially the same as before.
How have you been affected?
The landlord's action has led me to not receiving support from the Tenancy Sustainment Team (TST) at St Mungo's due to the destabilisation of my tenancy caused by proposed new terms of tenancy that are not fair or reasonable. I am living in a Rough Sleepers Initiative designated property. The landlord's action has also led to a great deal of inconvenience for me. Since 17 May 2020, when the agreement I last signed ended, I have been constantly battling the legal threat of a 'no fault' Section 21 eviction in a weekly periodic tenancy. My legal position in respect of a no fault eviction poses a direct threat to my life. I am a 60-year-old asthmatic with a long history of serious respiratory illness, thus placing me in the high-risk group for COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections. Eviction by the landlord would leave me wholly vulnerable and with no prospect of being housed. Assurances that I have received from the landlord that there is no intention to evict me have no value in law in periodic tenancy and are only as good for so long as they last. Other assurances that are not reflected in individual new terms of tenancy are equally of no value in law.
What has the landlord done since you first submitted your complaint?
The landlord maintains that, although the new agreement might not be word for word the same, there are effectively no material differences between the two tenancy agreements. Indeed, I have been falsely accused of not signing a like-for-like agreement. I have also been falsely accused of having appointed a solicitor. And it has been falsely suggested that because I am housed by the landlord, I am not a Clearing House tenant. My wife and I have been and remain tenants of the Clearing House. It is run by St Mungo's on behalf of the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the properties are provided by housing associations – such as the landlord. Alongside our tenancy is access to St Mungo's TST. These facts have been confirmed by both the GLA and repeatedly by St Mungo's TST to third parties. It is apparent from the landlord's final decision letter dated 11 December 2020 that the proposed new terms of tenancy would, inter alia, terminate my standing as a tenant of the Clearing House. It would leave me instead with visiting support from the landlord that I do not want or need. The landlord writes: "We do absolutely empathise with you as a former rough sleeper and we hope you will engage with us going forward to further help you with support."
What do you think the landlord should do to put the matter right?
The landlord should propose what it has repeatedly stated it is offering; namely, a new tenancy agreement not materially different from my existing agreement. It would not have to be word for word the same. It's not just visiting support from the landlord that I do not want or need (see the preceding section). Other substantial and/or adverse variations include the removal of the rent cap for social housing, the tenants remaining liable for rent and service charges until the end of the fixed term if the landlord does not agree to the termination of the tenancy despite the tenants' one month's notice in advance, and the reduction of the stipulated time in arrears for possession from eight weeks to 14 days. An all-inclusive list of terms that are materially different from those contained in my existing tenancy agreement is enclosed in a document titled "Comparative Screenshots". I have an arrangement with St Mungo's TST for support appropriate to my needs that I am unable to take up due to the ongoing destabilisation of my tenancy. In a supported housing tenancy, this represents an unsustainable position, and this, solely because of new terms of tenancy that are not fair or reasonable. It also poses a legal threat to my life (see the first section above).
3 May: Peabody Trust: The appalling terms of tenancy on offer. Declan will seek from the Housing Ombudsman a declaration of incompatibility pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998 (WITH UPDATE 05/01/21)[1]
__________________________
[1] 20 November: I had to upload several images in this blog post to an alternative host for images. They constitute more of my images in MediaFire that do not appear on their site.
DJ Ruth Fine orders Declan to pay £1,850 in costs
The Central London County Court is based at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Heavey v St Mungo's (2020)
The following is the full content of paragraph 4 under "Church and State" on this blog's sidebar.
4. This eviction matter previously came before District Judge Fine at the Central London County Court on 30 June, when both counsel for St Mungo's (the charity in effective control of our tenancy) and Declan presented their positions. Declan lost the case and was ordered to pay £1,850 in costs. A publishing colleague in America cleared these costs within 24 hours of my blog post about this hearing for strike out on a related issue that was the essence of the claim, i.e., that St Mungo's would take a phone call to confirm that we are clients of the Mayor of London's RSI programme. Within a week of the hearing, St Mungo's had agreed to take this phone call for us both, the Court having ruled that they were not obliged to do so despite our circumstances. This time we escaped bankruptcy (counsel for St Mungo's asked for £3,407.50 in costs), but consider that to seek pro se access to justice in the courts has become far too dangerous for us.
30 June: District Judge Ruth Fine orders Declan to pay £1,850 in costs. St Mungo's are under no obligation to even vouch over the phone that we are clients of the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's TST programme (WITH UPDATE 05/01/21)
The Central London County Court is based at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Heavey v St Mungo's (2020)
The following is the full content of paragraph 4 under "Church and State" on this blog's sidebar.
4. This eviction matter previously came before District Judge Fine at the Central London County Court on 30 June, when both counsel for St Mungo's (the charity in effective control of our tenancy) and Declan presented their positions. Declan lost the case and was ordered to pay £1,850 in costs. A publishing colleague in America cleared these costs within 24 hours of my blog post about this hearing for strike out on a related issue that was the essence of the claim, i.e., that St Mungo's would take a phone call to confirm that we are clients of the Mayor of London's RSI programme. Within a week of the hearing, St Mungo's had agreed to take this phone call for us both, the Court having ruled that they were not obliged to do so despite our circumstances. This time we escaped bankruptcy (counsel for St Mungo's asked for £3,407.50 in costs), but consider that to seek pro se access to justice in the courts has become far too dangerous for us.
30 June: District Judge Ruth Fine orders Declan to pay £1,850 in costs. St Mungo's are under no obligation to even vouch over the phone that we are clients of the Mayor of London-commissioned St Mungo's TST programme (WITH UPDATE 05/01/21)
St Mungos management were repeatedly warned by their staff via Unite that their actions weere unethical, damaged the work of front line staff and were likley to be unlawful. The same senior managers remain in place https://t.co/ZSXwq3Xd81 #homelessness #ukhousing @labhomeless_cam
— UniteHousingWorkers (@UniteHousing) November 5, 2019
Metropolitan Police Crime Reference No. 5330050/20. On 16 October, our flat door on the 2nd floor was vandalised by two thugs with a crowbar. Declan and I were in the flat at the time and fortunately our double locked door held firm. It's my opinion that they just wanted to break the door lock but didn't have enough time. The communal door lock downstairs wasn't broken, and on 11 November that lock was changed. Our flat door was repaired by a security contractor on 1 December with silicone sealant and glue gun. The police closed the case within two days of the crime due to a lack of evidence.
For months we have been dealing with an almost total blockade of our emails to prominent space advocates anywhere in the world (only the latest targeted group). That blockade extended to the sabotage of an offer of financial help to us personally last month. We continue to have major problems getting our emails through to a close colleague in Washington, DC. Declan's use of his mobile phone to try to get my permission emails through to prominent space advocates has also proven unsuccessful. On both recent occasions the leading expert could only be reached through voice mail because, we assume, of the pandemic that is still raging in America. Most recently, we have had the honour of listing a Hall of Famer astronaut among our Honorary Associates. It was one of the few emails that we have gotten through to prominent space advocates since last September. (A distinction is made here between a prominent space advocate and someone who has written an article about space travel. I do get some permission emails through to space writers, but regrettably not very many and only occasionally.)
23 December: The blockade of Church and State emails extends to the sabotage of an offer of financial help to us personally. Pixsy with their outrageous Third Notice threaten our Church and State website. And Declan's primary laptop targeted this afternoon
UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)
From My Picks:
24 November: For the fourth time Pixsy chase payment without a claim letter for the past non-commercial use of one image on the Church and State website. We're still waiting for Peabody Trust's final decision letter for the Housing Ombudsman to investigate appalling new terms of tenancy
Our list of 287 Honorary Associates includes 17 Nobel Prize laureates, 11 US National Medal of Science laureates and 12 knighted professors notwithstanding the excessive targeting of these three categories of emails in particular.
http://churchandstate.org.uk/honorary-associates/
"Let me recommend an important web site churchandstate.org.uk. Operating out of London this well-designed and exciting web site covers church-state, population, climate change and other issues. Check it out." Edd Doerr (1930-2020), (then) President, Americans for Religious Liberty
